Clear that were not talking about the indian wars in this kind of lecture thats going to be in a couple weeks and were gonna use that as as a way to link. Kind of wars throughout the 19th century all the way up to it including the spanishamerican war so our focus is were kind of around that. Were thinking more kind of legal policy and issues and and such so the goal is to think in that broad 19th century way so our start point is a couple key things we need to kind of deal with the second half of our semester one of the Big Questions were picking up on is what does it mean to be an american . All right who can claim to be an american . Thats one of the Big Questions thats going to kind of . Take us through the end of our semester into as we deal with the 19th century. So in upcoming weeks were going to talk about, you know, immigrants. Were going to talk about kind of the progressive error and things like that. I think this is a good start point. To think about who is claiming american status. And what does that mean . So were going to build from some of the ideas. We talked about with manifest destiny. From the discussion of Political Violence and build into these are other things. Couple key concepts that we need to deal with first of all a settler colonialism. Have you heard that phrase before . I see a couple yeses and a couple knows some heads kind of bobbing every which way, okay when we talk about settler colonialism, let me give you kind of a general definition here. Were talking about colonialism that seeks to replace. The original population colonialism that seeks to replace the original population with new settlers hence settler colonialism and and this is done in a couple different ways. One way is through kind of depopulation right an intentional effort to remove. Either physically, you know like the physically take them to another place remove or to exterminate. Depopulation right a second way that settler colonialism functions is through assimilation. Right getting the previous population to transition into membership in the new population. And theres a third way right the recognition of a previous population as unit within this new. Organization, were not going to see that nearly as much were going to see the first two more in our discussion today. So settler colonialisms. I mean we need to kind of keep in mind second big thing. We think about is the frontier. And what is the frontier . How does it function . And for that were going to deal with Frederick Jackson turner in 1893 Frederick Jackson turner as a historian at the university of wisconsin delivered. Well lecture about the frontier the Census Bureau in 1890 had said there was no longer a frontier and one of the things that turner wanted to talk about was what the frontier had meant in American History. The essentially argued that america doesnt exist without a frontier than americas existence is directly tied to this notion of a frontier. But what is a frontiers i think a fantastic question and in turners construction of this. Basically the frontier in American History has always function as basically a colony. The same way overseas colonies had functioned for european powers. This is how the frontier function for the United States. It was a place for Raw Materials to be produced. A dedicated market to export finish goods but more importantly it was a safety valve. And people disgruntled at home. Well move to the colonies on the same way people who are disgruntled on the east coast would move to the frontier. And that process reproduce. Kind of what it meant to be america. So you have this kind of contiguous colonies thing. Thats kind of right up close to it. And what makes the american frontier different than some of these other colonies is that theres this constant integration of the frontier. Into whats called the metropole into the mother country itself. And so thats an important distinction. But turner doesnt necessarily see the the frontier in purely positive light cc is a important space. For the recreation of what it means to be american but he also says i want to quote a piece from him. He says that the democracy born of freeland and by this he means kind of the frontier is a space where no one can has claimed this land. Just not true, but like thats the conception the democracy born of freeland strong and selfishness and individualism. Intolerant of administrative experience and education and pressing individual liberty. Beyond is proper balance has its dangers as well as its benefits. So from turners perspective, the frontier is an important location and its necessary for defining the american character, but its also a place that has generated a very unique vision of what it means to be american. Right and one that is. Very much tied to very kind of brutal and violent realities, right . So thats important for us right in terms of thinking about native americans and and that connection because again in turners vision of the frontier, free land its open space. So hes conceptualizing it as a without people already there. Okay, third thing we need to think about. Our ideas in the 19th century about social development. And for that were going to turn to lewis h morgan. I wrote a book in 1877. Called ancient society the title is its a 19th century book. So like the title is like forever long. We just call it ancient society. And basically what hes talking about through kind of studying kinship relationships and such. Is that all societies . Move through a uniform and identifiable path. Into civilization from savagery to barberism to civilization right and and savagery he identifies as kind of that huntergatherer kind of lowest rudimentary level of technology. Very little in terms of hierarchical social organizations, but its the start is in his mind the most primitive. And then you move into barbarism which you might see as analogous to bronze age technology, right the use of you know, smelting technology to create first of all iron tools with that into bronze and more intricate social organizations more sedentary lifestyles his vision of how this works is based in technology, but then also in sedentary life. So for huntergatherers to more permanent societies and then ultimately into what he defines a civilization which he defines breaks up into ancient medieval and modern. To kind of how we understand the western world and its break up and of course. America is the pinnacle its the top. Its the most modern of all places. It is the most civilized. So, okay great. So if you take this notion kind of all societies because he talks about whats called monogenesis. Are you familiar with this term monogenesis . That all people come from one singular creation. Samantha, do you have a question . So good. America was like the pinnacle. Did morgan view like the early colonists who were like technically british colonists as like savages . Oh, no, no. No, they still are part of civilized world. They are just so the again morgans vision is kind of Anglosaxon America english acts and vision to the british are the british even the french i guess he would throw in but kind of western european conceptions are the height of civilization. That includes all the western world. Not just yes. Brandon would you put in the five civilized tribes you had civilized into American Society five civilized tribe. He would have put them somewhere in that space between barbarism and civilized. Were theyre not there yet. At least thats my understanding of morgan. I meant that i have not Read Everything that morgan wrote so i dont know 100 but i think thats where you put the he puts most native americans in barberism or kind of savagery into barbers. Thats kind of where he sees native americans, but i dont know if he would necessarily classify. So the civilized tribes. I think you would say are imitating the civilized that may not necessarily. Be civilized. A good question. These are fantastic questions. So morgan is obviously not the only person out there and his ideas are not the only ideas but they are representative of kind of a notion a set of ideas and this idea that native americans arent necessarily civilized or theyre on maybe an earlier edge of civilization. And that one of the things that could be done is to help progress them into the civilized era into the modern world the civilizing mission, which will actually talk a lot about as we go through the rest of the semester this kind of notion of kind of what later. Individuals were called the white mans burden. All right, well talk about that. So those type of ideas but also then the idea that native americans are potentially an impediment. To progress right because they are stuck. In barbarism and so if theyre stuck in barbarism and theres no way to bring them into the modern world. What do you do then . Right. So these conceptions of who is modern who is not whether or not progress can happen you tie that then to this idea of the frontier and notions of settler colonialism, and i think what you get is the intellectual framework for understanding what whats going to happen throughout the 19th century again, like i said, were not going to talk about the wars. Ill talk about that in a couple weeks, but everything short of war here. Were going to talk about in terms of settler colonialism and its connections. Does that make sense any questions before we move on . Fantastic all right, so well start with the trail of tears. All of you have heard the trail of tears before i assume. Yes, okay. How many of you have heard about the georgia gold rush . Okay, so a couple of you have alright in 1828 in northern georgia in the appalachian portions of georgia. They find gold. Hence the gold rush but people are kind of pressing into this area increasing population and then in 1830 a second. Kind of vain is going to be found, but this is going to be in land. Claimed by the cherokee when it does not going to stop the the miners from going into that territory the cherokee yearly, please. Please dont. Please get out. Its actually called the great intrusion. I mean what . What a wonderfully kind of almost victorian understood intrusion, right . This is an invasion of minors into cherokee lands. And because of that theres this. Desire to kind of take those lands out of the hands of the cherokee. The gold rush doesnt lead. To the indian removal act. I want to make that did gold rush doesnt lead to it. This created that boot it made it easier. For people to support the indian removal. It had already been a push to remove some of this land from what are known as the five civilized tribes, the cherokee, muskogee, creek, seminole, choctaw and chickasaw. Adding is bad for me, all right. Theres that movement in 1830 Congress Passes the indian removal act which empowers the federal government to send out negotiators, send out negotiators to create treaties to Exchange Lands in the southeast for lands in what is designated indian territory, that portion of Louisiana Purchase territory west of arkansas. The first of these is the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek with the choctaw in 1831. And they signed this agreement to move from basically georgia to indian territory and did it in 3 ways from 1831 and ultimately 1833. We are talking about 15,000 the out of a population shy of 20,000, the vast majority. The thing is the first wave hits a blizzard. Secondly, the second wave is decimated by cholera. All three waves are going to face significant supply shortages and the general incompetence on the part of the federal individuals who are leading this process so all said and done Something Like 2000 to 4000 people are going to die in the process and the choctaw a removal we actually, the first time people use the phrase trail of tears. That is the start point. There is an effort to have a treaty with the seminole in 1832, what they do is send negotiated to the seminal and about this land in oklahoma, can we send people to check it out. Sure. So go to oklahoma and they come back and there is a report that supposedly, these seminole leaders signed so this land is terrific and wonderful and amazing except none of them actually signed it. And so when they said we are not moving the Us Government said yes you are, you have to. That will lead to the second seminole war in 1835. Thats a couple weeks from now, we will talk about that but some people fight back against removal. What is interesting when we think about the cherokee, the cherokee response to this whole process is perhaps the greatest example they had some level assimilated parts of white culture, they have taken bits and pieces and said if youre going to make us do this you are not the supporters the cherokee actually have a number of people on their side in this process. So in the early 1800s, georgia seeded a portion of its western land claims to the United States government which will encompass alabama and mississippi. And then in that process, georgia gives up its land, the cherokee dont give up their land, 1825 they basically create a new capital and in 1827 write a constitution and if you are looking, if the whole point is native americans need to assimilate into white culture the cherokee had done what the white subset do and it doesnt seem to matter seems to be a big deal. They passed a law in 1828 that any member of the Cherokee Nation that signs a removal agreement or land claim agreement without the approval of the council has committed treason against the Cherokee Nation. Theyve got this figured out. So when the indian removal act comes along their set and ready to go, the problem is georgia has looked to the Us Government saying you promised if we see you this land that you would help us remove portions of native americans living in our territory but you are not doing that so the Georgia StateLegislature Passes a series of laws giving them power to do whatever they wanted. The cherokee sued. In 1831 it goes through the Us Supreme Court at which point the Us Supreme Court says we are not going to hear your case. Always love the Us Supreme Court no. Thanks. We understand this is a huge concern with major ramifications but we are just have tea that day. The next year, 1832, another suit makes its way to the Supreme Court and they hear the case in worchester versus the state of georgia and the Supreme Court sides with the cherokee. At least on some level, the ruling here is that the state of georgia doesnt have the right to pass these laws that affect the cherokee because the constitution is quite clear that when it comes to the phrase Indian Affairs only the federal government has that authority. So georgias attempts to control the cherokee violate the constitution. President jacksons response to this is dont care. The thing like this idea good he said marshall made the decision, lets enforce it isnt that his response to it . There seems no evidence that shows him actually saying this. Could he have said it out loud . And no one wrote it down . Entirely possible. We dont have documentary evidence that ive been able to find that says that he said that specifically but the sentiment is there, the sentiment of i dont care. On some level it is not so much that he is not going to enforce the ruling, just that he is not going to side with the cherokee, the sermon court sided with the cherokee, you cant remove us in this way but the indian removal act that jackson supported, he doesnt have a problem. It all gets interesting because 1832, jackson basically declared war on South Carolina over the nullification crisis. Its a busy year for him. Ultimately what ends up happening in, 1835, a treaty is signed with a faction of the cherokee. The whole thing, the decision from the Supreme Court, feel like they have won. It doesnt look like the federal government is going to care. A rift begins to develop among the leadership of the cherokee. Some saying it is inevitable that they are going to force us to leave so lets get the best terms we can now. Another group saying we are not leaving under any circumstances. What happens, the group that is in favor of leaving on the best terms they can get sign a treaty in 1835 and even though that would technically be an act of treason under the cherokee constitution under their law, the Us Government says you signed this treaty, off you go. And three different waves, they are forced, some move muslim are dragged kicking and screaming. It is an interesting mix, 16,000 or so, and 2 to 4000 are going to die along the way. You would think after thousands of people have died in a process of forced removal to federal government would go lets not do that again. You would be wrong. Because in 1864 they are going to do it again. In 1864 they do it again. Some of this has to do with the civil war itself. In 1860 through 1861 large chunks of the u. S. Army, off the great plains, sent back east to fight which means that what youre going to end up having is mostly territorial militia. Thats going to be a bit of an issue. With the u. S. Army there, thats not a guarantee that treaties will be upheld but because of the civil war there are some that will side with the confederacy. Not just because they agree with the confederacy but the confessor he confederacy has promised them land, recognition of land. You had a question . To detentions with when they agreed ultimately agreed with confederates with tribal members of time too . Internal conflict whether the flag was the confederacy, there is always tension that we are going to see. The cherokee before they were forced into indian territory, some owned slaves, they adopted the notion of slavery. Some would have supported conception with the confederacy, the last confederate general to surrender is a cherokee general. Stand weighty i believe he was, sounds right in my head. Some will fight for the confederacy because they believe in the ideas of the confederacy, some do it, the devil i know best is the devil i go with. Because of